Fun Stuff > CLIKC
D&D anyone?
Alex C:
Honestly, I'm completely uninterested in 3.x these days. I really hate 3.x in many ways and hope that 4.0 stays relatively streamlined; as a former GM, I vew the expansiveness of 3.x as a double edged sword at best. 3.x was a class based system trying to create characters who could foreseeably fit about any mold you came up with via buckets of prestige classes. Good intentions, bad execution. I hold that class systems work best when you're vague rather than specific. Ironically, the more options they brought in, the more restricted I felt, since it seemed every time I built a character who was supposed to be fit a specific role in their place of origin's society, they'd go and throw in specific rules and a specific class for how those guys work. Often, these rules would suck or require some god awful confluence of munchkiny templates in order to be worth a damn. No thanks. That kind of crap is exactly why I prefer skill based systems to class based systems for games that don't often revolve around combat.
This ties in well with a rant i made in another thread about how I feel that Fighters and Barbarians should never have been seperated in 3.x. I still do not believe that barbarians as a class should be introduced to 4th. A fighter is an extremely generic term for a reason, and frankly, I think it's something that should be embraced rather than denigrated. As it stands, Fighters start with medium-to-heavy armor (chainmail and perhaps a big shield) and can specialize in wielding 2 handers and using powers with macho sounding names like Reaping, Cleave, Brute Strike and Unstoppable. Pick Athletics, Endurance and Intimidate as your class skills and bam, your character can easily pass as a barbarian; the only obstacle is people being sticklers about the name on your character sheet. Regardless, as a roleplayer, I feel that the class name on your sheet is the role your character fits in a fight, not their full story; after all, I can totally see how a powerful warrior from a tribe of barbarians could function as a Fighter OR a Warlord depending on his particular talents. As such, I'd much rather see WotC spend their time on sourcebooks and bestiaries then introducing a thousand-and-one new classes and role altering feats. A class should fit a common D&D archetype that is poorly represented under the current rules before it recieves serious consideration. For example, I could see how a druid or bard might be worthwhile additions since they don't really have obvious parallels with existing classes.
ackblom12:
From the sounds of it and the previews available from Insider, I actually am really liking how the Barbarian is shaping up. There is seriously looking to be a LOT of difference in how they work, which means there is actually going to be an actual decent reason for the class, even if technically it should be a template. I mean, in all honesty, I would be much happier if the Barbarian powers and the like were around, but went under a completely different class name, which would fix the problem of your class basically being your character background.
But man, 3.x... bleh. Played it for years and got sick of playing a spreadsheet. Fun, but so goddamn easy to break.
Alex C:
I'm looking at that right now; frankly, barbarian almost seems like a dumb name for it. Honestly, thematically it is closer to shamanic warriors or berserkers than anything, but I suppose the name barbarian has sentimental value to D&D players. I guess I just find it funny that this means Conan would basically be a Fighter or Warlord for D&D 4th purposes. At least they're clearly dedicated to pushing the theme beyond simply being "I'm a Barbarian! The difference between me and a Fighter is that I get angry when I kill people!"
It has my tentative stamp of approval.
Catfish_Man:
--- Quote from: ackblom12 on 15 Feb 2009, 13:58 ---But man, 3.x... bleh. Played it for years and got sick of playing a spreadsheet. Fun, but so goddamn easy to break.
--- End quote ---
It's what you make of it. If you don't bother trying to break it, it generally works better.
TheViscount:
I think, for experimental purposes, and for those who are actually more interested in the combat system of Dnd 3.5 more than the roleplay, but partake in roleplay all the same and enjoy it, those bucket-loads of prestige classes are almost like tidbit gifts, I for one LOVE them. I remember one of my favorite character..Honestly, some of the best days I had playing Dungeons and Dragons was playing my Alienist. There were many prestiges that were considered just too plain or boring or strange without reason, though...
I think the idea of a barbarian should be more of a development, like a prestige for the fighter, kind of what Frenzied Berserker was in 3.5. FB was the standard `blow-shit-up including those around you` Barb prestige, but since Barbs already got angry, FBs lost some novelty in the comparison point to their base class predecessors. If FB became a sort of prestige option for fighters in 4.0, I`d actually be pretty happy, I love that angry-go nuts archetype [Well, I used to, I`m not so much into the idea of frenzied chaos and anger now.].
I`m kind of on the fringe about 4.0.. I haven`t checked in on what they`ve done with it for a while so I should. Have they started adding new powers for all the classes in non-core books yet? =] That`d make me a happy camper.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version